Under legislation, building control officers are obliged to consult with fire and rescue services in certain circumstances. But, as Bob Bright points out, there is much confusion about the timing and extent of that consultation.
Under the Building Act 1984 and the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (RRFSO), there is a duty on a local authority to consult with the fire authority where a building regulations application is deposited. There is also a guidance document, Building Regulations and Fire Safety Procedural Guidance, which suggests how consultation should be conducted.
Applications for building regulations consent are considered by building control bodies – either a local authority building control or an approved inspector. Fire authorities should not be involved in consultation until the building control body is satisfied that the application complies with building regulations. At this point, plans of Part B compliance and supporting documentation are sent to the fire authority. which should respond in writing within 15 working days.
These comments should be limited to and clearly distinguish between those that need to be complied with under the RRFSO, those that are required under other fire safety legislation, and those that are advisory but not enforceable. The division of responsibility is very clear. During the design and construction phase, building control takes the coordinating role, so any advice that needs to be given by the fire service should be done through the building control body.
After consultation and when building control is satisfied that the plans comply, it may issue a notice or certificate approving the plans and, in the case of a statutory consultation, fire authority comments should be included and the fire authority should be sent a copy of the notice or certificate. There is a procedure for a buildings regulations applicant to seek a determination from the secretary of state, if there is a disagreement between them and the building control body about the application of building regulations. There is no appeal procedure available, however, between the fire service and the applicant or the building control body.
Design service?
The procedural guidance clearly states that “advice given by the building control body and the fire authority does not extend to providing design consultancy”. But as a result of the setting up of approved inspectors, there is a very competitive atmosphere in the field of building regulations.
Approved inspectors have brought about a great change in the application of building regulations and initially, their approach was more relaxed than that of a local authority building control body. However, I have noticed an increasing trend in local authorities taking a similar approach in order to stay competitive against approved inspectors.
Developers and architects making an application are now in a position that allows them to exploit the resources of building control bodies to their advantage, to the extent that with some you get an impression that whoever pays the piper picks the tune. The standard of building regulations applications submitted by some architects and developers leaves a lot to be desired and as a result, building control bodies realise that unless they provide a commercial service that is considerate, helpful and understanding, they will lose business to the competition. What this actually means is that they have to be design consultants.
Reasons for consultation are given in the procedural guidance as:
– Providing an opportunity for the applicant to be made aware of any issues concerning fire safety that may not be covered by building regulations, but may be applicable once the building is occupied.
– Ensuring that any advice on fire safety matters from a fire authority is incorporated into the final building design before construction.
– Minimising costs to the applicant by involving the fire authority at the earliest opportunity.
– Where the size or location of the development might have implications for the disposition of fire appliances and resources.
As far as the first two points are concerned, I cannot see anything that a fire authority would want to apply to a building, once occupied, that is not covered in building regulations – if they are applied correctly. As for reducing costs, in my experience the involvement of the fire authority in consultations involves more costs to the applicant. This occurs because of a combination of inexperienced fire safety officers and applicants’ lack of knowledge of the procedural guidance. In addition, the applicant’s relative lack of knowledge of building regulations and fire safety guidance, emphasised by the inherent authority of the fire service uniform and the enforcement possibility that it implies, makes it seem easier for the applicant to include what the fire authority wants at the construction stage.
Under the Fire Safety Order, there is a requirement to consult on proposals to accept measures that are complex and deviate from the general guidance of B5 of the Building Regulations i.e. access and facilities for the fire and rescue service. But many access problems are outside the scope of building regulations and should have been dealt with at the planning application stage, so fire authorities are too late when trying to apply them through building regulations.
The right time
The procedural guidance says that consultation with the fire and rescue service should not occur until the building surveyor is reasonably satisfied that the application complies with the regulations. This is not always followed, and many fire authorities and building control bodies consult from the moment the application is registered through to completion. The biggest offenders are local authority building control departments which, because of historical reasons, retain close links with their local fire authority and either seek their approval, or rely on them to apply Approved Document B.
Many fire officers are playing the building surveyors’ role by checking that building regulations are applied correctly and, when in their opinion they are not, are writing to the applicant/developer independently of the building control body – with or without their knowledge. This happens when building control officers either misunderstand fire service legislation and the procedural guidance, or they consider it helpful to have an ally that reinforces their position and are happy with the fire authority assuming their role and responsibilities.
Some approved inspectors, on the other hand, are compliant with the procedural guidance in terms of consultation, some consult and then disregard the fire authority, and others don’t bother consulting at all! Building surveyors need to accept responsibility for applying the building regulations – in particular Approved Document B – in their entirety and should not involve the fire authority in that procedure until they are ready to approve.
Each to their own
I do begin to wonder at the purpose of consultation, and what the fire officer actually brings to the consultation table, when building surveyors apply the regulations day in, day out. Some may say it is experience, together with knowledge of fire and fire fighting. But such experience and knowledge is no longer a prerequisite of a career in a fire safety department – an ever increasing number of fire authorities are employing inspecting officers who are uniformed civilians with no firefighting and no fire safety legislation experience. Others may say it is information about an existing building, but this is readily available in the property file.
If the issue is the risk assessment required under the RRFSO, then this is the duty of the ‘responsible person’ of the relevant building. If this is for an occupied premise it should already be in place while building work is in progress and if not occupied, it should be in place when it is. As the enforcing authority, a fire and rescue service does not sanction, verify or validate risk assessments. But on inspection it does ensure that the risk assessment is applicable to the operation and use of the occupied premises. It is not a responsibility that can be applied at consultation stage and, as it is risk based, prescriptive regulations do not apply.
I know from my own experiences that some building surveyors rather like the attendance of fire officers at meetings with developers and architects. In circumstances where the building control body and fire authority sing from the same hymn sheet, the uniform adds an ‘intimidating’ factor to the proceedings.
There seems to be a lot of emphasis on the input of the fire service being crucial to ensure that a building is constructed in an efficient and cost effective manner. In reality, the opposite seems to be the case. Under the RRFSO I can see no reason why – if a building is constructed in accordance with the approved documents or in a manner that satisfies the relevant regulation – it cannot satisfy any inspection made by the fire authority when occupied.
Many fire and rescue services are changing their consultation procedures as a result of the RRFSO. They have realised that building regulations will satisfy fire safety legislation when the building is occupied. Building surveyors are the experts and – if occasionally they do get it wrong – let them accept the responsibility. Fire authorities will deal with it later under the RRFSO as part of their risk based inspection programme. Let’s get away from using fire officers for the benefit of building surveyors, or because applicants may be afraid of them; they have no powers in unoccupied buildings and they do not enforce building regulations. Building surveyors are paid well to do their job correctly – if they don’t, it is not for fire officers to do it for them. If consultation is to continue, then a fire officer’s comments should be limited to non building regulations matters to satisfy legislation once the building is occupied.
With the ever increasing need for fire and rescue services to justify their use of resources, the time and manpower implications that consultation imposes cannot be justified. I can see little benefit in continuing with the consultation process in its present format. It should be reviewed or abandoned.
Bob Bright is a consultant with a local authority building control department and a technical advisor with a fire and rescue service. The views expressed here are those of the author and should not be associated with any other person, employer or organisation.
Under legislation, building control officers are obliged to consult with fire and rescue services in certain circumstances. But, as Bob Bright points out, there is much confusion about the timing and extent of that consultation.
Under the Building Act 1984 and the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 (RRFSO), there is a duty on a local authority to consult with the fire authority where a building regulations application is deposited. There is also a guidance document, Building Regulations and Fire Safety Procedural Guidance, which suggests how consultation should be conducted.
Applications for building regulations consent are considered by building control bodies – either a local authority building control or an approved inspector. Fire authorities should not be involved in consultation until the building control body is satisfied that the application complies with building regulations. At this point, plans of Part B compliance and supporting documentation are sent to the fire authority. which should respond in writing within 15 working days.
These comments should be limited to and clearly distinguish between those that need to be complied with under the RRFSO, those that are required under other fire safety legislation, and those that are advisory but not enforceable. The division of responsibility is very clear. During the design and construction phase, building control takes the coordinating role, so any advice that needs to be given by the fire service should be done through the building control body.
After consultation and when building control is satisfied that the plans comply, it may issue a notice or certificate approving the plans and, in the case of a statutory consultation, fire authority comments should be included and the fire authority should be sent a copy of the notice or certificate. There is a procedure for a buildings regulations applicant to seek a determination from the secretary of state, if there is a disagreement between them and the building control body about the application of building regulations. There is no appeal procedure available, however, between the fire service and the applicant or the building control body.
Design service?
The procedural guidance clearly states that "advice given by the building control body and the fire authority does not extend to providing design consultancy". But as a result of the setting up of approved inspectors, there is a very competitive atmosphere in the field of building regulations.
Approved inspectors have brought about a great change in the application of building regulations and initially, their approach was more relaxed than that of a local authority building control body. However, I have noticed an increasing trend in local authorities taking a similar approach in order to stay competitive against approved inspectors.
Developers and architects making an application are now in a position that allows them to exploit the resources of building control bodies to their advantage, to the extent that with some you get an impression that whoever pays the piper picks the tune. The standard of building regulations applications submitted by some architects and developers leaves a lot to be desired and as a result, building control bodies realise that unless they provide a commercial service that is considerate, helpful and understanding, they will lose business to the competition. What this actually means is that they have to be design consultants.
Reasons for consultation are given in the procedural guidance as:
• Providing an opportunity for the applicant to be made aware of any issues concerning fire safety that may not be covered by building regulations, but may be applicable once the building is occupied.
• Ensuring that any advice on fire safety matters from a fire authority is incorporated into the final building design before construction.
• Minimising costs to the applicant by involving the fire authority at the earliest opportunity.
• Where the size or location of the development might have implications for the disposition of fire appliances and resources.
As far as the first two points are concerned, I cannot see anything that a fire authority would want to apply to a building, once occupied, that is not covered in building regulations – if they are applied correctly. As for reducing costs, in my experience the involvement of the fire authority in consultations involves more costs to the applicant. This occurs because of a combination of inexperienced fire safety officers and applicants’ lack of knowledge of the procedural guidance. In addition, the applicant’s relative lack of knowledge of building regulations and fire safety guidance, emphasised by the inherent authority of the fire service uniform and the enforcement possibility that it implies, makes it seem easier for the applicant to include what the fire authority wants at the construction stage.
Under the Fire Safety Order, there is a requirement to consult on proposals to accept measures that are complex and deviate from the general guidance of B5 of the Building Regulations i.e. access and facilities for the fire and rescue service. But many access problems are outside the scope of building regulations and should have been dealt with at the planning application stage, so fire authorities are too late when trying to apply them through building regulations.
The right time
The procedural guidance says that consultation with the fire and rescue service should not occur until the building surveyor is reasonably satisfied that the application complies with the regulations. This is not always followed, and many fire authorities and building control bodies consult from the moment the application is registered through to completion. The biggest offenders are local authority building control departments which, because of historical reasons, retain close links with their local fire authority and either seek their approval, or rely on them to apply Approved Document B.
Many fire officers are playing the building surveyors’ role by checking that building regulations are applied correctly and, when in their opinion they are not, are writing to the applicant/developer independently of the building control body – with or without their knowledge. This happens when building control officers either misunderstand fire service legislation and the procedural guidance, or they consider it helpful to have an ally that reinforces their position and are happy with the fire authority assuming their role and responsibilities.
Some approved inspectors, on the other hand, are compliant with the procedural guidance in terms of consultation, some consult and then disregard the fire authority, and others don’t bother consulting at all! Building surveyors need to accept responsibility for applying the building regulations – in particular Approved Document B – in their entirety and should not involve the fire authority in that procedure until they are ready to approve.
Each to their own
I do begin to wonder at the purpose of consultation, and what the fire officer actually brings to the consultation table, when building surveyors apply the regulations day in, day out. Some may say it is experience, together with knowledge of fire and fire fighting. But such experience and knowledge is no longer a prerequisite of a career in a fire safety department – an ever increasing number of fire authorities are employing inspecting officers who are uniformed civilians with no firefighting and no fire safety legislation experience. Others may say it is information about an existing building, but this is readily available in the property file.
If the issue is the risk assessment required under the RRFSO, then this is the duty of the ‘responsible person’ of the relevant building. If this is for an occupied premise it should already be in place while building work is in progress and if not occupied, it should be in place when it is. As the enforcing authority, a fire and rescue service does not sanction, verify or validate risk assessments. But on inspection it does ensure that the risk assessment is applicable to the operation and use of the occupied premises. It is not a responsibility that can be applied at consultation stage and, as it is risk based, prescriptive regulations do not apply.
I know from my own experiences that some building surveyors rather like the attendance of fire officers at meetings with developers and architects. In circumstances where the building control body and fire authority sing from the same hymn sheet, the uniform adds an ‘intimidating’ factor to the proceedings.
There seems to be a lot of emphasis on the input of the fire service being crucial to ensure that a building is constructed in an efficient and cost effective manner. In reality, the opposite seems to be the case. Under the RRFSO I can see no reason why – if a building is constructed in accordance with the approved documents or in a manner that satisfies the relevant regulation – it cannot satisfy any inspection made by the fire authority when occupied.
Many fire and rescue services are changing their consultation procedures as a result of the RRFSO. They have realised that building regulations will satisfy fire safety legislation when the building is occupied. Building surveyors are the experts and – if occasionally they do get it wrong – let them accept the responsibility. Fire authorities will deal with it later under the RRFSO as part of their risk based inspection programme. Let’s get away from using fire officers for the benefit of building surveyors, or because applicants may be afraid of them; they have no powers in unoccupied buildings and they do not enforce building regulations. Building surveyors are paid well to do their job correctly – if they don’t, it is not for fire officers to do it for them. If consultation is to continue, then a fire officer’s comments should be limited to non building regulations matters to satisfy legislation once the building is occupied.
With the ever increasing need for fire and rescue services to justify their use of resources, the time and manpower implications that consultation imposes cannot be justified. I can see little benefit in continuing with the consultation process in its present format. It should be reviewed or abandoned.
Bob Bright is a consultant with a local authority building control department and a technical advisor with a fire and rescue service. The views expressed here are those of the author and should not be associated with any other person, employer or organisation.
